| 1 |
On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 7:09 PM, Greg KH <gregkh@g.o> wrote: |
| 2 |
> On Wed, Jul 24, 2013 at 04:40:38PM -0400, Rich Freeman wrote: |
| 3 |
>> It just seems like we should be able to get by without a semiweekly |
| 4 |
>> kernel upgrade on our "stable" branch. |
| 5 |
> |
| 6 |
> You want me to slow down and do releases in larger chunks then? Hah, |
| 7 |
> not a chance... |
| 8 |
> |
| 9 |
|
| 10 |
To clarify - I wasn't criticizing your release schedule or making all |
| 11 |
those builds available in ~arch. I was only concerned with the idea |
| 12 |
of making all those hit stable. I think the kernel team (including |
| 13 |
yourself) have been doing a great job with the stable kernels in |
| 14 |
general. |
| 15 |
|
| 16 |
Just one other note - stable packages in general don't just benefit |
| 17 |
from arch testing. They also benefit from users running ~arch and |
| 18 |
reporting issues. Stable ebuilds are ones that have generally been |
| 19 |
used by many others for about a month already, so issues are likely to |
| 20 |
have been caught. |
| 21 |
|
| 22 |
I do agree with all that has been said about there being a tradeoff |
| 23 |
between new regressions and new fixes. Unless we run year-old kernels |
| 24 |
with tons of backports we're going to have that problem. We aren't |
| 25 |
RHEL. |
| 26 |
|
| 27 |
Rich |
Archives